[net.politics.theory] Private property and libertarianism

carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/13/85)

[To Cliff Matthews:  You may call me "Rich," thus tweaking my egalitarian
sensibilities.  May I call Mr. Mc Kiernan "the Perfesser"?]

Cliff asks for my input on the Battle of the Dictionaries.  The basic point
to be made about all this is that it doesn't matter how you define "theft,"
"freedom," or anything else, as long as it is clear which definition you are
using in a given context.  Some libertarians imagine that if they can find a
definition of "theft" which implies that taxation is theft, they have
thereby scored a point against taxation.  In reality, they have only
demonstrated a tautology, i.e., a statement true by definition.  The
question they should be addressing is whether taxation is always and
necessarily unjust, and if so, why.  

For that matter, is the taking of property by force necessarily unjust?  Is
it unjust iff it involves the "initiation" of the use of force?  Is there a
statute of limitations on this--i.e., since North America was taken from the
Indians by force, are their descendants justified in retaking it by force?
And this type of situation has been the RULE, not the exception, in modern
history.  Most property in the industrialized world today was originally
acquired with the help of private or state coercion.  W. G. Hoskins, in *The
Age of Plunder*, describes the economic history of England since 1066 as
"looting" pure and simple -- only a slight exaggeration.  

Furthermore, no one ever agreed to the rules of transfer of property now in
effect.  These rules were established ONLY by the use of massive force and
violence, generally with the help of the state.  These rules can be summed
up as the "free market," whose most important aspect in capitalist society
is the free market for LABOR (and the concomitant notion that reward for
work is properly distributed on the basis of individual commodity
contracts).  How did the free market for labor come into existence?  How did
labor come to be treated as an exchangeable, nonhuman commodity?  Any
libertarians want to take a guess?  

The capitalist free market is an episode in the history of coercion and
violence, but libertarians don't seem to consider such things.  This goes
along with the FUNCTION of libertarianism as an IDEOLOGY (as opposed to the
intentions of libertarians as individuals):  TO PROTECT THE BENEFICIARIES OF
PAST COERCION (THE CAPITALIST CLASS) FROM THE POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES OF
FUTURE COERCION.  This explains the libertarian emphasis on the protection
of private property, for this is IDENTICAL with the preservation of class
domination.  

Libertarians, so far as I know, have not explained why the reward of work of
a particular kind, managing the deployment of capital, includes, by natural
right, the appropriation of power over the lives of others (the working
class).  There is nothing "natural" whatsoever about the rights and powers
of ownership which are in effect in our society -- they are purely social
constructions.  In what "state of nature" or natural order of things are the
rights of property defined so that one can possess it without being required
to work on it, or so that one can set the conditions for those who do work
on it and have those conditions enforced by the state in the name of
contracts?  Classes are not given by the state of nature, but are created
(in capitalism) when the STATE, by COERCION, enforces the rule that
stockholders don't have to work in an enterprise and workers aren't allowed
to run it.

Hardly any land in Europe is now held in common or by feudal lords, as used
to be the case.  What happened?  Among other things, a powerful, centralized
state developed and helped to redistribute land, so that large masses of
people now possess insufficient property to generate a livelihood and hence
must sell their capacity to labor to those who do own the means of
production.  In addition, it is state power that has given power over the
lives of others to the owners of capital:  no one, or hardly anyone, would
ever become a wage laborer unless he were COERCED into doing so.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/15/85)

In article <336@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>How did the free market for labor come into existence?  How did
>labor come to be treated as an exchangeable, nonhuman commodity?  Any
>libertarians want to take a guess?  

Because the products of labor were the first commodity, followed shortly by
the labor itself? [NOTE: This *is* just a guess. Probably the best anybody
can do, considering the time that labor became a commodity.]

>This goes
>along with the FUNCTION of libertarianism as an IDEOLOGY (as opposed to the
>intentions of libertarians as individuals):  TO PROTECT THE BENEFICIARIES OF
>PAST COERCION (THE CAPITALIST CLASS) FROM THE POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES OF
>FUTURE COERCION.  This explains the libertarian emphasis on the protection
>of private property, for this is IDENTICAL with the preservation of class
>domination.  

Since I think most of the production facilities in the country should wind
up in government hands, I hope you'll excuse me while I snicker at that!

>Libertarians, so far as I know, have not explained why the reward of work of
>a particular kind, managing the deployment of capital, includes, by natural
>right, the appropriation of power over the lives of others (the working
>class).

Rich, I suspect that management jobs include that power not by right, but
by necessity. If you are managing a task that doesn't require human labor,
then that power doesn't exist. On the other hand, if the task you are
managing does require human labor, then the person managing the task has to
be able to direct the application of that labor; otherwise, he might as
well give it up. Maybe you would like to explain how to manage a task when
you have a non-cooperative labor force, and no way (such as control of the
money supply to them) to get them to cooperate.

>In addition, it is state power that has given power over the
>lives of others to the owners of capital:  no one, or hardly anyone, would
>ever become a wage laborer unless he were COERCED into doing so.

Rich, are you seriously claiming that the people who went to work early in
the industrial revolution were forced to do so by threat of bodily harm? Or
maybe you consider offering better conditions than were currently available
elsewhere to be coercion?

>Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

	<mike